Originally posted by Pete Biro: I think many have gone off the question... "what was a complete dud?"

IMHO Oil and Water is the worst effect ever created.... let the flames begin... er, no, we already have enough flaming in S. Calif.... :help:

Now Pete,

If the presentation is the key, then Jack McMillen did a trick where the reds and the blacks were separated no matter how you shuffled, or who did the shuffling, sort of an "Oil and Water", wouldn't you think? He called it "The San Francisco Shuffle", perhaps you've heard of it?

"Oil and Water" CAN be the worst trick ever...but i don't think this is neccessary...I am in agreement with Jon Racherbaumer that the major reason for the tricks typical lack of impact is the grossly excessive number of phases...the thing typically is simply long and repetitive...

I've taken the meat of the routine assembled by Larry Jennings (taught in "Thoughts on Cards" and predominantly featuring phases by other performers (I believe Ray Kosby and Roy Walton))...pared it down to three phases (each increasingly dramatic as per Jennings' construction) with only three cards and use a wonderful o and w presentation that Jamy Ian Swiss buried in print...and the result is a routine that plays VERY strong for laymen

I believe the Oil & Water effect, and The Rock can correct me if I am wrong, was originally created by Ed Marlo. If not it certainly was popularized by Mr. Marlo.

While I agree most people I have seen attempt to present this effect have failed, I have to concur with Mr. Olson, seeing my dear friend Rene LaVand perform I Can Not Do It any Slower is witnessing a work of high art.

I must also add that anyone who has had the privilege of spending serious time with Juan Tamariz and seen this mans plethora of unpublished work on the Oil and Water plot, will walk away believing that Juan can walk on water! His work is THAT Good.

If I were King of the close-up kingdom for a day and was in charge of qualifying aspirants to be allowed in the inner sanctums of the real work, the first test would be this: The aspirant would be taught the rudiments (plot and methodology) of Oil & Water and it would be the only trick that they could perform before the High Council. Their supreme task then would be to figure out the psychology, patter, timing, and theatrics to enliven this pedestrian trick so that the audience would be thrilled, touched, and edified.

The onus should ALWAYS be in these aspects.If Oil and Water is a dud and lacklustera trivial, unimpressive puzzlethen the challenge lies in making it SEEM miraculous and memorable.

The rankest beginner can impress spectators with the Nudist and Invisible deck, but it takes a master to make Oil and Water transcendent.

With all due respect, Pete of Biro fame, Oil and Water is no more duddy than the Chinese Sticks or Linking Rings. But

.Look what Roy Benson and Gaeton Bloom did with the former. Otherwise, I cant think of two more pedestrian, overworked, and ho-hum tricks

By the way, after the aspirant in my fictional example passed or failed his test, I would make him watch Levand and Tamariz perform the hoary trick with red and black cards.

P.S. The originator of Oil and Water?Some say that its Hofzinser, who used a full deck.Others say that its Walter Gibson.

The title belongs to Marlo.The prevailing motif with eight cards and numerous phases, including anti-oil and water, is probably Marlo. He certainly published more methods and almost single-handedly popularized it.

The only card effect that has more variations is the Four-Ace Assembly.

I would hesitate to add Hofzinser to any pre-Marlo credits in the Oil and Water history. The Magic Separation appears in the Appendix to the Hofzinsers Card Conjuring, which lists effects only (no methods). This is after the following caution: In Conclusion, there follows a list of Card Experiments which were of Hofzinsers invention, though there is no authentic proof of this. So, with no method and no proof, it would seem inappropriate to credit Hofzinser with the Oil and water effect. I dont know where and when Walter Gibson published his trick, but the following may be of interest to the debate (if there is one).

To assist me in some recent research, Gordon Bruce loaned me Sam Dalals Mantra Vol.1 No.1 (April 1975). In this issue Marlos original Oil & Water is reprinted along with the following letter (dated 1951), from Marlo to Bruce Elliott.

February 19, 1951Chicago 22, Illinois

Dear Bruce

Enclosed you will find a routine Oil and Water. I have had this routine for several years and only a few cardicians have ever seen me perform it and fewer still have ever been given the secret or complete routine.

I remember, at the first Chicago Convention after the war, I did this routine for Bill Simon who at that time was just out of uniform. I believe he attended the Chicago Convention as a demonstrator for Lou Tannen. As I had met Bill previous to this, it was only natural that he and I should get together. Up in his room, at the Morrisson Hotel, I did the Oil and Water routine for him at the foot of his bed. At that time I did only two phases of the routine. When I had finished, Bill reminded himself of an idea Dai Vernon had in connection with Follow the Leader. The opening of this routine was similar to the second phase of Oil and Water; however, the final effect was still Follow the Leader. I pointed this out to Bill saying that Vernons routine, although it started out along similar lines, had entirely a different climax. In Vernons, the colors followed each other in Oil and Water, the colors were seemingly mixed and then separated. Later, still intrigued by the fact that Vernons routine started out as the second phase of Oil and Water, I hit upon an idea. Instead of transposing the two face up packets, I simply pushed the face up red cards into what were supposed to be the face down black cards and visa versa. This the third phase of the routine came into being.

That same convention year I did the routine for Martin Gardner and a small group of magicians in the wee hours of the morning at the Triangle Restaurant. Stewart Judah and Paul Montgomery of Akron also saw the routine that same year.

I said see, but not show, because among the first ones to actually get the details of the routine was Dai Vernon. That was the year Vernon came out for this first lecture in Chicago. I did the routine for him then and he had never seen it before and it puzzled him. I showed him the working details but the next day, Vernon, who had other things on his mind, had forgotten some of it. I then wrote it out for him on the back of a Deutsch Restaurant place-mat. He also asked me if I had any objections to his showing the routine to Dr. Daley. As I always desired to get along with Doc, I said I would be more than pleased if Daley were interested.

From this point on I kept the routine out of print, practically never doing the effect, simply because I wanted to feel I had given Vernon something the others didnt get. Finally about two years ago, I broke down and also gave the routine to Bert Fenn and Neil Elias. Needless to say I am now sending it to you. I hope you will keep it to yourself and not let any part of it get into the Phoenix.

A dud huh? I suppose it's a highly personal thing. For me, it would have not been an effect, but more or less a book, (The James Files) and a rather large one at that. While I recognize the sheer genius and intelligence in the writer, after reading what seems page after page after page, nothing sunk in. It seemed I was going thorugh the motions. However, just because I couldn't find anything that was interesting to me now, doesn't mean I won't as I mature. (IF I mature).

As for Oil & Water, I perform the version I learned from Larry Jenning's "Thought's on Cards" tape. I hear a lot of people saying that they are unhappy with the premise,(too many phases, too convoluted, just plain boring... etc) and I can't figure out why. Lately I've been listening to the people I perform it for, and while the reactions are generally the same, it's what they say that has fascinated me.

While they are generally impressed with the first phase, during the second phase, the mixing of the cards is done so cleanly (I deliberately make sure that my one hand does not touch the other one, not making it blantant that I am doing so, but just enough so that ir registers with them that my hands didn't touch.), that they almost always say "You COULDN'T have done anything there.", which in a way is a true.

I've found that the people who make that statement, are more impressed that the people who don't make the confirmation.

Overall, I like the effect, and I like the way it plays with my spectators.

While attending a Magic Camp up here in Canada, I sat with Dan Harlan for a little bit and he performed his "Royal Oil". Now that's an impressive bit of story to go along with an older card effect. So impressive I bought it. I like the plot, don't know why, but it intrigues me.

To expand on Jon's theme of performance in regard to what one might consider a "dud," when Richard Kaufman was writing "The Secrets of Bro. John Hamman" he showed me "The Magic Cards."

As he showed that the three "magic cards" now matched the value of the first card he had laid on the table, I instantly saw the duplication of suits and said, "Oh no. You're not going to repeat that two more times, are you?"

Kaufman, to his credit, told me to shut up and watch. As I was editing the book, I decided to learn the trick, just for the hell of it, and performed it for some people. Guess what? It was a big hit.

I added it to my repertoire and successfully performed it hundreds of times. I'm not putting down Richard K. as a performer, but in the context of a "session" I was super-sensitive to things like observing suits during the performance of a trick, while in other contexts this is not the case.

So, thank you Richard, for putting up with me and for allowing me to add something to my repertoire. And it is performance, and context, that can turn a trick from a dud to a blockbuster.

In the good, old days when pen and paper were part of ones default system of memorializing things you are likely to forget or tire of talking about, magicians bickered a lot about their proprietary rightsreal, imagined, and actionableof ideas, sleights, tricks, presentationsyou name it! Magicians still bicker. Alliances are still made. Camps still gather, divide, and sub-divide. Lackeys, mouth-pieces, sycophants, friends, enemies still wage wars of variable pettinessonly now there are forums in cyberspace for squabbles to play out. Most are, in the long run, probably not worth wasting bandwidth. For many it simply good gossip or down-and-dirty mischief. When I first encountered this phenomenon, I was stunned. This surprise lasted long enough for me to consider satirizing or ridiculing such behavior; hence, the Satiricon section of the HIEROPHANT. This, needless to say, resulted in lots of vitriolic feedback, hate mail, anonymous diatribes, and other over-the-top screeds. So it went.So it goes

I still read loose talk and casual argumentation in the form of serious-minded messages regarding the differences between certain false shuffles. Im still credited with being the supposed writer of a contentious manuscript about a false riffle shuffle. In reality, I edited the manuscript, which was written by Marlo. Brick Tilley did the drawings. The bones of contention have been picked clean, exposing dead marrow. Now the dry marrow is being parsed and apportioned into smidgens: confetti to be throw up or at Naming the parts is now a matter of naming the smidgens. Then one can resume calling the agonists names. Sometimes it comes down to the last man standing, even if he is hunched over and too senile to mutter anything intelligible.

When Im asked these days about the said manuscript, I often say:The real author is a guy who frequently impersonated Steranko, but was arrested in South America on charges never clear to outsiders of the case. Some say he was also a distant relative of the Mysterious Kid. While in jail, the same impersonator developed the ultimate component of the controversial shuffle, which with a dash of irony he named The Applied Cell-Block Transfer. Nobody knows what happen to the code book and concordance to the accursed manuscript, which, once fully understood, would exonerate the principal parties of any alleged wrong-doing.

Meanwhile.

Back at the Oil-and-Waterhole Saloon.

The subject, as usual, was about the paternity cases pending

Karl Fulves was the culprit who ancestrally linked Hofzinser and Gibson to Oil and Water. He wrote:

"In the 19th century Hofzinser Performed (?) a trick where Reds and Blacks were shown to be mixed. The deck was then divided into two parts. The Red cards were shown to have magically separated from the Blacks.

The he added:

"In 1920 Will Goldston marketed a trick of Edward Victor's in which face up Red and face down Blacks were mixed. On command the Blacks turned face up and separated themselves from the Reds. More recently Ken Beale has pointed that the small packet handling of the basic effect was contributed by Walter Gibson to Jinx #91. The oil and water theme (applied to an elevator effect showed up in a 1948 issue of Hugard's Magic Monthly. Subsequently Ed Marlo combined elements of the earlier tricks to produce the version which appeared in Al Sharpe's M.U.M. column". Marlo, miffed to the max, replied:

(WARNING: If this sort of detailed rejoinder leaves you cold, scroll past it. In a real, face-to-face discussion, there are far more details.)

The Hofzinser effect was only a problem posed. There is no record of Hofzinser having performed the effect. No one in America was aware of this proble until the recent hindsight translation. The effect was supposed to have been done with a regular deck. How it was accomplished is only a guess. Since the word divider' carries several connotations one could infer it was dealt into two packets and this procedure surely would not have made it very magical. If one assumes the deck was cut then one could guess a Strip Out was used. But how was the Strip Out situation arrived at? By shuffling, by injogging as you spread the pack between both hands perhaps a stripper deck? In view of this I could hardly have used any elements for my oil and water effect, from the above source especially since oil wasn't around in old Hoffy's day. Perhaps he could contact Hofzinser in the spirit world and get him to say that my Four Packet oil and Water routine in the Linking Ring September, 1959 is really his method.

The Edward Victor effect suggests that face UP and face down cares righted themselves or were all one way. Surprising the editor of Pallbearers doesn't equate this with Triumph! How about the Slop Shuffle, in which cards are mixed face up and face down then shown to have righted themselves, why doesn't he equate this with Triumph? Yet with no definite procedure for the Victor effect given he not only has the hindsight of an animal with long ears in comparing it to oil and water but has the gall to assume I was even aware of the Victor effect. Actually I wasn't aware of its underlying method but will feel safe in saying that none of the Victor elements were used in my original "Oil and Water" routine. When I used to pitch the Stripper Deck. One of the old and standard effects with this deck was to intermix Red and Black cards, of the full deck, then later to show them as separated. Would any equate this with the oil and water procedures I established? Apparently he would.

The editor of Pallbearers then refers to the Gibson effect Like Seeks Like, in Jinx #91. While this comes closer to the small packet idea of mixing the colors it is not referred to as oil and water being mixed. The Gibson method uses only three Red cares and three Black cards which are intermixed and a Glide as the secret sleight. None of these elements are used in my oil and water routine. Also a much older effect, in which three X cards and three Jacks are intermixed then later the top three cards only are shown to be three Jacks, preceded the Gibson effect. The extra Jack, usually a Red one, was the bottom card of the supposed three X cards. The three Jacks had a Red Jack as its top care. A deck also was used onto which the cards, alternately, starting with an X card was dealt face down onto top of deck. The Red Jack was next then the x card another Jack the supposed X card but really the Red Jack and finally the last Jack onto all. Result was three Jacks could be dealt off of top of deck. I showed this version to Carmen D'Amico many years ago. It can be found in "Scarne on Card Tricks" page 155, if one is interested in all the details. Of course Red and Black cards are not used and there is no mention of Oil and Water although in IBIDEM #15 I did relate to it. The effect, like Gibson's, is done only once. There are no follow up phases, with each one becoming more convincing, as in "Oil and Water". The editor for some reason ignored Bill Simons Biddled effect in Phoenix #224, in which Red and Black cares were alternated then thru the use of the Biddle Move showed the Red and Black cards were separated. Here again there was no mention of oil and Water separation as an effect theme. Simon's method naturally was used to do the separation effect only once. A careful study of all the above mentioned methods obviously show that I used no elements from them in my Oil and Water routines that always consisted of several phases with each phase being more convincing and puzzling.

The Pallbearer Epilogue editor will do anything or go to any lengths to take away credits from me. As an example he infers that an oil and water effect with an elevator theme appeared in a 1948 issue of Hugards Magic Monthly. Well, I looked several times thru that whole year of the magazine and finally came across an effect titled, What's Up? by a Samuel Pavloff in a December 1948 issue, of Hugards Magic Magazine, on page 494. Those who have the file of this magazine can do themselves a favor and read this article then seriously consider just what kind of twisted thinking the Pallbearer is delivering. If you haven't the time or the magazine the article uses the presentational theme of how (1) A postage stamp weighs more if signed with ink; (2) That cards with more spots weigh more than those with less spots with the four lightest cards being the four Aces. You now remove the four Aces and the remainder of the deck is cut into four equal heaps. You now place each Ace at the bottom of each packet. You now request the spectator to name any number between three and ten. One of the packets is picked up and the number named is transferred from top to bottom of the packet. The next three top cards are dealt one on each of the other three packets. This same process, with the number already named, is repeated for the next three packets in turn. Now notice how the Pallbearer editor uses a strictly patter presentation to give his readers the usual misinformation. The performer remarks now, as follows, to his spectator as per the quote from Hugards Magic Monthly for December 1948:

If you were to mix oil and water in a container which would rise to the top?

Whether he answers correctly or not you make it clear that the oil would rise to the top because oil is lighter than water. If you were to mix milk and cream which would rise to the top? The answer is, of course, The cream, because it's lighter than milk. Return to the four packets of cards on the table and say By now I hope you are convinced that when several substances are mixed together, the lightest will always rise to the top. At this point the obvious concluding effect of showing each Ace on the top of each of four Rackets is shown.

Gentlemen read that again Note that there isn't any mixing of Red and Black cards and that the patter presentation mentions several examples of light and heavy elements to later conform to what is really a quadruple ambitious card bit rather than an elevator theme. The elevator theme uses a deck of cards or a packet of cards and the cards travel up and down and from center to either up or down. But, you say, the effect in Hugards could well have been my inspiration for the elevator effect with four Aces. It could have been except for one thing the Epilogue editor didn't let you know. What is this? Simply this What's Up? appeared in Hugards Magic Monthly for December 1948 while my effect, Penetration and later re titled The Elevator Effect, appeared in the Sphinx Magazine in June 1948.

All those above sources you have just read have elements which in no way represent the elements used for the Oil and Water that originally appeared in M.U.M. and later in The Cardician with other versions of mine in other publications; however, the most important points are that it is my title my premise My approaches my techniques from My Oil and Water routines that inspired all existing routines and variations of Oil and Water made by others and not the sources dug up from the underground by an editor whose job it is to apparently bury first and then call the Pallbearers.

This was Marlo first response. Later, he wrote another equally long response. These were published in Marlos Magazine and privately circulated.

So, not only are there hundreds of variations of a Dud Trick, there are scores of contentious articles and ongoing debates.

A complete dud? It has to be the 'Large Face, Small Back' effect which Ed Marlo describes on 'The Cardician' DVD! Forgive me for not including it in my repertoire, i just can't seem to take it seriously enough (am i meant to take it seriously?).

back to the thread...effects of the great that dud..All Backs for the layman. How to say this,...good tricks out of character, Sorry to say this but most magicians are not debonair. I have seen so many effects fail - Invisible Deck by tablehoppers that need to complete the effect in 30 seconds. Card to Wallet is one that fails often. Many don't connect by some sort of reason why it ends up in the wallet.

Many times it is not by way of effect but by grooming - so many look like Vegas wannabees when they are working the local pizza place.

Just read this thread with its particularly interesting postings from Jon R and Peter D, so thorough I cannot comment further (I am in agreement). However, in suggesting duds I strongly dispute Invisible Deck. From personal experience using it in stand-up, and a different presentation in close-up for Brainwave, I have always found both terrific successes.

Also, I think we must feel sorry for David Mitchell for his inability to appreciate The James File. Of course much may not be 'commercial' but much is. It speaks for itself so I will not say more on this-I am speechless!

Regarding duds, I do not think Twisting the Aces or similar means much to spectators. IMHO the biggest dud is not in cards but the Dancing and Floating Cane, except when performed by Peter Pit or Brahma. I was always upset to see Ken Brooke perform it when I knew how wonderful he was at everything else.

I don't know Jonathan - IMHO the dud/workable for that trick was resolved when someone posted a patter theme about remembering school dances and how the early ones hand the boys and girls just standing at oppositite sides of the gym...

whether or not that's enlightened or just finding the right match of action and social imagery - ?

I think maybe we are talking about a piece of meat ? I think
If you take the meat ,throw it in the oven and cook it and not pay attention to it its going to get burn . A bad cook !
But....
If you find out how to make a great meal out of it.Think about it. Give your guest a delicious meal and a great time. Is that we are talking about maybe ? Is it the Chef ? Tamariz and Lavand ?

I'm not crazy about Sands of Egypt or Hindu also called the sands of the desert.
Jack Gwynne did an OK routine using two color sands.
It looks like Lauant did a good routine.
Then Doug Henning. Jack Gwynne told Henning that he should do that trick.
Terry Evanswood comes close.
I thought it was still an OK trick then at WMS I saw Pendragon perform it . It was wonderful.

Take me to the River. Foghat did an Ok version of it. Then David Byrne and Talking Heads add some different spices and made it better.

or

Oil and Water can be a bad trick IF....
Its your first trick at a restaurant with 50 plasma Tv's everywhere with ESPN on and in background with Todd Rundgren's " I don't want to work ,I want to bang on the drum all day" blasting.

Its like Mozart in a Hip Hop Club.It doesn't go to together . ( This is becoming a patten?)

So ,I guess there 's other things to think about.
The Key is to think . Not burn.

Sorry this is what happens when you read the Genii Form and then take a shower.

Funny how people forget Al Green. Or that travel between Vienna and the rest of Europe (as well as this continent) was not so uncommon back when Hofzinser left lasting impressions on his students and good impressions on his audiences.

All that need have happened is one audience member or studen tto have passsed on soemthing like "did you see the one where where that guy just stuck a joker in the pack and all of the suden the red cards were on one side and the black cards on the other?" and word gets around.

Have a look at the W. A. Mozart and Salieri letters for how his works went over at the time. Even so, they remain with us. ;)

Not sure how I feel about something that's intrinsic to the entire pack being focused on performer's hands ... the "he did something/puzzle to catch" seems to be creeping into the foreground - at least when I think about the item.

dancing cane: utter, unadulterated crap. even in the hands of peter pit or david copperfield or anyone, it's an anachronistic object obviously attached to a string. the necessary hand movements are replicated in no other life endeavor. and the only hope for this preposterously revered effect is essentially never attempted: a two-second performance of it, like the disciplined presentation of smaller floating objects (perhaps because embarrassment is more immediate at the close-up table) by those combatting the strong too-perfect whiff of things floating. instead, we get the obligatory three minutes of cane thing equidistant from hands moving in unison like an inept conductor, with the "hard" around-the-head move thrown in and the occasional luminous gloves or strobe-light coda. does any other performance art have so squalid a staple, and with so many relatively well-spoken defenders? it's almost as horrendous as card warp.

Pete criticised All Backs; interestingly, I recently devised an All Backs routine (nothing special - combination of Vernon and Jennings); tried it on a layman, who thought it was the best trick they'd seen! Absolutely convinced I must have switched packs, then fried when I righted it.
Now; I'm still working on this, so had no great patter story - it was just the effect that worked for him.

I'm absolutely convinced about the importance of performer/presentation/effect in that order; so this surprised me a bit!

And all three will depend on the type of audience...some more subtle effects will go down great for an intelligent dinner party audience; but I'd use a different repertoire for the drunks at The Talbot Inn:

That was deliberately incongruous, because I am curious why I so unreservedly hate an effect - Card Warp - that has a near- consensus behind it. I like most things that most people like, or at least understand why they like them. With Card Warp, though, the intense dislike is matched by the complete incomprehension as to why anyone wouldn't share my intense boredom, almost angry frustration, on seeing it performed. Though it feels like a permanent disposition, few things are more satisfying than being persuaded away from a view that you had presumed immutable. So I solicit descriptions from those who like Card Warp in the hope that one might connect. Liking and disliking things is mostly visceral, and obviously subjective. But it's not unchangeable. And all else equal, I'd prefer to like more things and dislike fewer. That said, I loathe Card Warp, slightly more than even the dancing cane.

But - this is an effect that has been sold for years. I suspect that if the effect was crap, it would have died, along with 99% of other effects.
I do enjoy looking through old magic magazines and reading the ads, and seeing which effects have stood the test of time. Card Warp is one.

As you say, it's all subjective; I hate sponge balls but I know many people who swear by them.

Card Warp was the second manuscript I bought from Davenport's in 86 (the first was Rainbow Cascade). The packet trick lasted a few years, but I've used Card Warp consistently ever since. I've tried the various bank note variations, but I always go back to the standard routine with two unprepared cards (incidentally, not many people know that Roy's original handling used unprepared cards as well; the work was put in to make things easier for people less comfortable with sleight of hand).

Over the years I've seen thousands of reactions to the effect, and I can count on my fingers the 'meh' responses. Twice, someone has hazarded a guess that was close to the method, but they were many years ago. So, I suppose that after twenty five years of using something and getting extremely positive results, that's enough for me to enjoy the routine. (The fact that I enjoy performing it helps, as well...)

Perhaps the hatred of the routine stems more from the presentations you have seen, rather than the trick itself? Have you ever learned the routine (or, put another way, do you know the method?)

Last edited by Ian Kendall on January 17th, 2012, 1:59 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:Have and hate are very different words...